You can have my keyboard when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Practicing journalism without a license is not a crime.

DevinC
—
2014-01-19T22:45:26Z —
#3

I read the Wikipedia article on the 2011 case and was gobsmacked, repeatedly. Leaving aside the question of how an extortionist can claim First Amendment freedoms, we are presented with this gem:

Obsidion has filed a motion to seize and sell Cox's right to appeal to help satisfy its $2.5 million judgment, on the grounds that Cox's appeal right is intangible personal property subject to seizure.

What the actual fuck?

euansmith
—
2014-01-19T22:53:43Z —
#4

That beggars belief.

noahdjango
—
2014-01-20T00:05:17Z —
#5

euansmith:

beggars belief

nothing on wiki, either. help a Yank out, mate?

rider
—
2014-01-20T00:06:12Z —
#6

So basically bloggers will continue to call themselves journalist or not journalist depending on which set of rules they want to fall under.

JeanBaptiste
—
2014-01-20T00:08:04Z —
#7

from the Reuters article:

“the 9th Circuit still concluded that there was no dispute that Cox's post was false.”

“...Obsidian would now have to show that Cox had actual knowledge that her post was false when she published it.”

“According to the court's opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities 'and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.' “

That is the question I’m facing with the latest twist in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, a pro bono First Amendment case that I’m litigating before the Ninth Circuit. For more on the substantive First Amendment issue, see the materials collected here. But this twist is all about procedure (as so many legal questions are).
Here’s the matter in a nutshell, and somewhat oversimplified:
Obsidian Finance and Kevin Padrick sue Crystal Cox. They win at trial, and get a large judgment.
Cox appeals on First Amendment grounds (I’m representing her on appeal). Cox has very little money, so she can’t put up a so-called “supersedeas bond” (a bond for the full amount of the judgment) that is required to keep plaintiffs from seizing her assets to execute the judgment. But that doesn’t block her appeal, since under federal law one generally doesn’t need to put up a bond in the amount of the judgment to appeal — one only needs the bond to stop execution on the judgment pending appeal.
But plaintiffs have a different view: They go to Oregon court, register the judgment, get a writ of execution, and ask the sheriff to seize and sell to the highest bidder Cox’s “intangible personal property,” in the form of … Cox’s right to appeal.
That’s right: Plaintiff’s plan is to have the sheriff sell off Cox’s right to appeal, so that “Cox will be incapable of continuing the suit and the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale (whether that be plaintiffs or someone else) will take an assignment of Cox’s interest in the appeal, becoming the real party in interest.” Presumably the plan is that the highest bidder would be the plaintiffs, who will buy Cox’s rights for a modest amount, and then use those rights [...]

As I blogged last week, a pro bono First Amendment appeal that I’m litigating (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox) sprouted an interesting procedural twist; to oversimplify:
Obsidian Finance and Kevin Padrick sue Crystal Cox. They win at trial, and get a large judgment.
Cox appeals on First Amendment grounds (I’m representing her on appeal). Cox has very little money, so she can’t put up a so-called “supersedeas bond” (a bond for the full amount of the judgment) that is required to keep plaintiffs from seizing her assets to execute the judgment. But that doesn’t block her appeal, since under federal law one generally doesn’t need to put up a bond in the amount of the judgment to appeal — one only needs the bond to stop execution on the judgment pending appeal.
But plaintiffs have a different view: They go to Oregon court, register the judgment, get a writ of execution, and ask the sheriff to seize and sell to the highest bidder Cox’s “intangible personal property,” in the form of … Cox’s right to appeal.
Plaintiff’s plan was thus to have the sheriff sell off Cox’s right to appeal, so that “Cox will be incapable of continuing the suit and the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale (whether that be plaintiffs or someone else) will take an assignment of Cox’s interest in the appeal, becoming the real party in interest.” Presumably the plan is that the highest bidder would be the plaintiffs, who will buy Cox’s rights for a modest amount, and then use those rights to drop the appeal. No more appeal; the judgment is final; end of story.
Of course, if plaintiffs can do this to Cox, any plaintiffs who win a judgment against a defendant who can’t afford a supersedeas bond [...]

(Eugene Volokh took the case pro bono on appeal, and argued it through to this outcome. Cox wasn't the ideal defendant in this case, but the outcome is significant. Volokh deserves a lot of thanks for his role in this case).

noahdjango
—
2014-01-20T01:17:47Z —
#10

thanks, euan. lovely chatting with you again.

CarlMud
—
2014-01-20T02:59:47Z —
#11

Free Speech rights are the hero. Cox doesn't have to be. Cox could be a Westboro protester/Holocaust denier/Neo-Nazi/[insert "bad person" here], and the upholding of her free speech rights would still be a good thing because they're upholding the free speech rights of others who don't hold her beliefs.

CarlMud
—
2014-01-20T03:04:06Z —
#12

That right there is the more hidden evil here. When corporations can buy your rights, you have no rights because they will always have more money than you. Since political donations are "free speech," they already have more free speech than you since they have more many than you. One more corporate sovereignty issue and the erosion of individual rights in the face of corporate interests.

Corollax
—
2014-01-20T08:11:54Z —
#13

There's more detailed coverage of this incident available at Popehat. It's long, but entertaining.

euansmith
—
2014-01-20T10:59:20Z —
#14

Its not on Urban Dictionary? That beggars belief!

It is a response to something so outrageous you can can't get your hat on. As DevinC put it so succinctly, "What the actual fuck?"

bwv812
—
2014-01-20T12:44:49Z —
#15

Appeals court rules bloggers have same speech protections as journalists

I don't think that's quite what they've done. Journalists have never explicitly had greater speech protections than anyone else. Instead, free speech protections for defamation have always depended on the target of the statement. Persons of public interest can only win if they statements against them are false statements of fact uttered in reckless disregard to their falsity. Private individuals have needed to show that the false statements of fact were uttered negligently. There was nothing in existing precedent to suggest that this legal standard only applied to journalists, and the trial court appears to have invented this standard based on the fact that the Supreme Court precedent involved media outlets, and not private citizens. Which is to say that it was the trial court that ruled that bloggers do not have the same speech protections as journalists, and the appellate court simply reversed them and clarified that the Supreme Court precedent applies to all speakers.

Basically, the trial court improperly applied a different standard and the appellate court corrected this.

I think this is the basic gist of the Popehat summary.

DevinC
—
2014-01-20T13:24:11Z —
#16

Thank you, I hadn't got to reading Volokh's take on the whole thing, and I see that his reaction was pretty much the same as mine (though somewhat less profane and cliched.)

noahdjango
—
2014-01-20T17:11:50Z —
#17

yeah, the hang-up for me was "beggars" is a verb here, not a plural noun, which we don't have in USA-ian speak

the more you know...

euansmith
—
2014-01-20T18:15:04Z —
#18

I think its a verb in this case too, or an adjective, I'm not sure which I think it should be read as, "This shit is so fucked up it makes a beggar of belief."

Two nations separated by a common language as George Bernard Shaw would have it.

riking
—
2014-01-21T01:10:15Z —
#19

Those more interested in this story, or those that want a few good laughs, should read this Popehat post: